Last month 53 percent of independents approved of Obama's handling of foreign policy. This month Obama's approval on foreign policy has dropped to 41 percent among independents.

The drop comes after terrorist attacks on an unprotected Libyan consulate despite
receiving prior warnings, Obama's decision to blow off intelligence briefings so he could attend celebrity parties, the storming of embassies in Egypt and other
countries and the administration's initial response of sympathy to
terrorists.

The drop likely would have been larger had the mainstream media not aggressively campaigned for Obama, covered up damaging stories and focused more attention on criticizing Republican Mitt Romney instead of the terrorists responsible.

Among the total electorate, Obama's foreign policy approval has dropped five points since last month, to 49 percent.

Sen. Rand
Paul today issued a Dear Colleague letter to Members of the U.S. House
of Representatives, in which he urged them to pass a bill cutting all
foreign aid to any country that fails to secure our embassies, as well
as, demanding accountability from the countries of Pakistan, Egypt, and
Libya, that were recently involved in the violence directed at our
embassies. He issued a similar letter to his colleagues in the Senate,
underlining his intention to filibuster any pending legislation until
the Senate addresses these matters. TEXT OF LETTER:

September 18, 2012

Dear Colleague:

As
this is expected to be the final week of legislative session for both
the House and Senate before an extended recess, I urge you to take
immediate action to pass a much-needed bill demanding cooperation and
accountability from the countries involved in the recent violence
directed at our embassies and consulates. The bill should send a strong
clear message to these entities: You do not get foreign aid unless you
are an unwavering ally of the United States.

This
week is likely our last chance to address the ongoing violence, to
promote security at our diplomatic facilities, and to take appropriate
steps to ensure cooperation from the governments of Pakistan, Egypt and
Libya.

First,
we must demand accountability from the government of Pakistan, which
receives over $3 billion from us every year, yet routinely plays both
sides of some of the most important issues while openly thwarting our
objectives in the region. They should be subject to the same conditions
applied to Egypt, Libya, and the others, and they should also release
Dr. Shakil Afridi, the doctor who bravely stepped forward to help us in
our efforts to identify the hiding place of Osama bin Laden. Dr. Afridi
remains under arrest for his role in finding bin Laden, and no country
that arrests a man for helping to find bin Laden is an ally of the
United States. If Pakistan wants to be our ally-and receive foreign aid
for being one-then they should act like it, and they must start by
releasing Dr. Afridi.

At
the same time, we must take steps to cut foreign aid to Egypt and
Libya-or any other country which fails to secure our embassies-and we
must make it clear that, unless there is full cooperation in bringing
these attackers to justice, no foreign aid will be provided in the
future. A full investigation is necessary to determine who is
responsible for these murders, and simply identifying the persons
responsible is not enough. We must insist that any country which
expects assistance dollars from the United States cannot permit the
growth and influence of violent ideologies within their
borders-especially when the practitioners of these ideologies are intent
on murdering our diplomatic personnel abroad. All of these actions
must be verified and certified before Congress considers resuming aid.

While
I believe the most effective tactic is to demand a full stop to the
flow of foreign aid money to these countries until those responsible for
the attacks on our diplomats are found, there are other options which
can be considered. For example, significant cuts that are less than the
full amount of foreign aid could be considered, coupled with
redirecting a portion of the money into the improvement of security at
our diplomatic facilities. If these countries cannot secure American
lives and property, our increased cost of doing so must come out of the
money set aside for aid.

The
timing of this action by Congress is crucial. There is no better time
than now to send a clear message to the world that we will not send good
money after bad any longer. I have insisted on floor consideration and
votes on these issues in the Senate, and will be engaged in a
filibuster of the Continuing Resolution and any recess for adjournment
until the Senate allows action on these vital matters.

I hope you will join me in this effort by passing a bill in the House of Representatives to address this ongoing crisis.

“A new report put out by the Pew Research Center finds that the median income is worse now than it was during the Great Recession,” CBS reports.

“According to Pew, the Census Bureau showed that the median income
for American households in 2009 – the official end of the Great
Recession – was $52,195 (in 2011 dollars), while the median income
dipped to $50,054 last year, falling 4.1 percent over two years,” CBS
reports.

“The decrease in household income from 2009 to 2011 almost exactly
equaled the decrease in income in the two years of the recession,” the
Pew report stated. “During the Great Recession, the median U.S.
household income (in 2011 dollars) dropped from $54,489 in 2007 to
$52,195 in 2009, a loss of 4.2 percent. By this yardstick, the recovery
from the Great Recession is bypassing the nation’s households.”

The report also finds the poverty rate and median household wealth
are worse under Obama’s policies than they were under the recession.

A record number of Americans are on food stamps under Obama, and that
has economists worried. Three years after the recession officially
ended “47 million people each month are using the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP),” Manhattan Institute economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth reports.

“Food stamp participation has always increased during a recession and
in the initial stages of a recovery…levels seen since the end of this
recession are far higher than in prior recoveries. While the 36 month
periods following the recessions of the early 1980s saw decreases in
food stamp usage, the recessions of the early 1990s and in 2001 saw
increases between 1 and 2 percent over the same period, in comparison
with an increase of 3.5 percent following the recession ending in 2009,”
the report finds.

The difference appears to be the result of changes by politicians to
incentivize welfare enrollment. ” In addition to the difficult job
market, this is because of changes in the program that began in October
2008, including expansion of benefits and elimination of the cap for
child care expenses.”

“The increase in participation in 2008 was caused by a combination of
widened benefit eligibility, the recession, and a concerted effort to
expand access to benefits. The 2008 Farm Bill changed the name of the
program from the Food Stamp Program to SNAP, in an effort to reduce the
social stigma associated with receiving benefits. As of October 1, 2008,
the minimum benefit and standard deduction for households were
increased. The cap for child care expenses was also eliminated. There
were also changes aimed at combating fraud, including disqualification
of people who sold benefits or food obtained with SNAP benefits for
cash, and the bill allowed the USDA more flexibility in setting
consequences including fines and disqualification periods for retailers
who engaged in food stamp fraud.”

Coal producer Alpha Natural Resources announced today that it is “eliminating
1,200 jobs companywide, including 400 with the immediate closing of
eight mines in Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania,” The Associated Press
reports. Company officials cite “a regulatory environment that’s
aggressively aimed at constraining the use of coal” for the closures,
adding to the growing list of American energy producers who say the
Obama administration’s excessive red tape has contributed to thousands
of recent layoffs. Here’s more:

“Murray Energy's Ohio Valley Coal Subsidiary Lays Off 29 Hourly Workers”
“Ohio Valley Coal Co., a subsidiary of Murray Energy Corp. in Pepper
Pike, said it has laid off 29 hourly workers at its Powhatan No. 6 Mine
in Belmont County, Ohio — a move it blames on ‘the excessive and unnecessary regulatory actions of the Obama administration.’ … He [Ronald Koontz, general manager of Ohio Valley Coal] continued…‘The
failed energy policies of the Obama administration and the ‘war on
coal’ that the president and his Democrat supporters have unleashed are
the direct cause of this layoff.’” (Crain’s Cleveland Business, 7/20/12)

“Two Coal Companies Downsize” “Two area coal
companies announced layoffs Friday, saying weakened coal demand and an
aggressive regulatory structure forced the idling of several mines. … ‘[T]he
escalating costs and uncertainty generated by recently advanced
[energy] regulations and interpretations have created a challenging
business climate for the entire coal industry,’ he [PBS President and CEO D. Lynn Shanks] said in the statement.” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 7/20/12)

“Coal Jobs Cut; Consol, Others Scaling Back”
“[C]ompany officials are laying off 318 West Virginia coal miners,
citing pressure from federal environmental regulators. Consol is not
alone in reducing its coal operations in West Virginia, as Arch Coal and
Alpha Natural Resources also announced recently plans to cut back their
work forces throughout the Mountain State. All three companies blame
[federal regulations] for causing a downturn in coal demand, citing
this as the reason for reducing their coal operations.” (The Intelligencer/Wheeling News-Register, 7/8/12)

“Coal Industry Sheds Jobs, Leaving Eastern Kentucky Economy in Tatters”
“The impact of an estimated 2,000 mining layoffs this year is hitting
home across the mountainous coal counties of Eastern Kentucky. … Luke
Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, said whether
the rules are in place or coming, ‘the uncertainty they have created in
the industry and the reduction they will cause in our power generation
market have already begun to take their toll.’ Utilities are
deciding to retire coal-burning power plants because of the costs they
would face to keep them in service under pending emissions rules,
Popovich said.” (Lexington Herald-Leader, 7/29/12)

“Arch Coal to Cut 750 Jobs” “Arch Coal announced it
is idling several operations and reducing production at others. The
company said these and other recent changes will result in a total
workforce reduction of about 750 full-time employees. … That, combined
with what coal officials say is an uncertain regulatory environment…is a driving force behind the recent job cuts.” (Charleston Daily Mail, 6/21/12)

The Obama administration’s war on coal is costing jobs and
forcing American energy producers to shift “their attention to markets
overseas, where coal-fired power plants are being built faster than they
are being abandoned in the United States,” says The New York Times. House Republicans are taking action on the Stop the War on Coal Act
this week to protect American jobs by blocking some of the Obama
administration’s most damaging new regulations and holding the
administration accountable for the economic impact of several others.
The House has already passed numerous bills
aimed at eliminating the excessive regulations that are blocking
American energy production and costing jobs. It is up to Senate
Democrats to act on these and the more than 30 other bipartisan, House-passed jobs bills they are stalling.From the office of the Speaker of the House

In a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama Administration quietly banned the
re-importation of 600,000 American made M1 Carbine rifles.

And I've just discovered Obama may be
blocking as many 300,000 1911 Colts too!

That's nearly one million pieces of American history
denied to the American people.

The M1 rifle, developed in the late 1930’s, carried the
United States through World War II seeing action in every major battle.

General Patton at the
time called the M1 “the greatest battle implement ever devised.”

The rifle is
largely credited with giving American soldiers the advantage and securing victory for the allies.

During the Korean War, nearly one million of these rifles were brought
to South Korea and left with the South Korean government afterward.

Now, South Korea wants to give
American gun collectors the chance to get their hands on this unique
piece of
history.

A piece of American history that Barack Obama would like to see go down the memory
hole.

That’s why I want as many Americans as possible to put themselves on record
opposing this gun ban by signing the Official
Firearms Freedom Survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.

Will you please join me?

After World War II, the United States government sent millions of these rifles overseas to our allies and
friends.

That includes 950,000 M1 Garands, 1.2 million M1 Carbines, and 300,000 1911 Pistols.

Over the past 50 years, many of the countries we lent them to returned them to America to be bought
and sold by firearms collectors.

This is nothing new.

Make no mistake; these firearms were made in America, by Americans, for Americans, to defend freedom on foreign shores.

As a part of our history, they are greatly sought after by American shooters and collectors.

But according to Hillary Clinton’s State Department there is a danger they might “fall into the wrong
hands.”

That they might, possibly, one day be used in a
crime.

No mention of the hundreds of thousands of gun owners deprived of the opportunity to
own an integral part of American history.

The State Department’s outrageous claims are
nothing more than a thinly veiled ploy to distract from the real issue:

President
Obama’s deep seated hatred for gun rights.

While his gun-grabbing base is giddy with
praise at this back-door gun ban, law-abiding citizens across the United States are crying foul.

Let me be clear: at no time in U.S. history has the ownership of these
firearms -- or any part of these firearms -- been illegal, restricted or
banned.

Americans have collected World War II M1 rifles for decades.

Now they are sold through the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

You
can even purchase a newly manufactured model from Springfield Armory that was made just a month or two ago.

And the M1’s caliber or capacity is no more dangerous than the
millions of modern firearms owned by Americans across the country
today.

As you can see, there is absolutely no justification for this unconstitutional gun
ban.

This is just the latest in a series of anti-gun schemes from the Obama Administration:

*** A new so-called “Assaults
Weapon Ban" -- targeting ALL semi-automatic rifles and shotguns -- which, unlike
the Clinton ban, would NEVER expire;

*** An outright BAN on “high capacity” magazines -- banning the sale and
manufacture of magazines holding more than just a handful of rounds;

*** A National Concealed
Carry “Standard” -- designed to make it even more difficult for law-abiding citizens to
carry a gun to protect themselves and their families from assault;

*** Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s
“Catch-All Gun Control Scheme” -- to create a national “cannot buy
registry,” allowing
citizens to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights on a Justice
Department whim, effectively banning all
private
gun sales.

That’s why it is
essential that Americans like you and I take a stand against the M1 rifle and 1911 gun ban!

It
has been common practice since the end of World War II to re-import
these American made rifles from the foreign allies they were lent to
during the
war.

But the Obama Administration departs radically from the American tradition.

In fact, on top of banning American citizens from owning these historic firearms, Obama’s State Department
is arranging for the destruction of nearly one million of them -- ironically, at a time of ballooning federal deficits.

It’s an outrage!

These firearms -- truly pieces of American history
-- rightly belong in the hands of U.S. citizens.

That’s why I was glad to hear that the
National Association for Gun Rights is helping fight this power grab in the U.S. Senate.

Do
you believe the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment are the supreme law of the land?

Do you believe that President Obama banning the
re-importation of these historic firearms is an unprecedented and
unconstitutional
power grab?

Do you support Congress forcing President Obama to reverse his ban and save these
American made firearms from destruction?

If you said “Yes” to these questions,
please sign the Firearms Freedom Survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.

Your survey will put you squarely on the record AGAINST Barack Obama’s Gun Ban.

And along with your signed survey, I hope you’ll send a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even
just $35 to help finance this battle.

With your generous contribution, the National Association
for Gun Rights will continue contacting Second Amendment supporters to turn up the heat on targeted U.S. Senators.

Not only that, but they’re preparing a massive program
to launch the designed to force President Obama to reverse this ban.